Euclid Senior Developement Plz

Pros

• They are grateful for the opportunity to stay there.
• They close with a blessing, saying "God bless."

Cons

• The reviewer claims the property manager and assistant manager show favoritism and fail to secure the building.
• The building is described as lacking security, with no proper sign-in/sign-out and non-residents entering freely.
• The postal worker is said to be afraid to deliver mail because of the security situation.
• A red flag is raised by residents staying more than 21 days in a year, indicating occupancy concerns.
• The manager and staff are accused of jealousy, gossip, and mistreating residents, including the reviewer's mother.
• The property is not a maximum-security facility but effectively minimum security, requiring residents to stay vigilant.
• Potential movers are warned that moving there is at their own risk and that protection is advisable, especially at night.

Review

The overall impression given here is one of deep concern about safety and security at the property. The reviewer paints a picture of an environment where outsiders seem to have easy access, and where the lines between residents and non-residents blur in troubling ways. They repeatedly describe a building that feels unsecured, with people moving in and out without proper checks, and with a sense that "anyone can go in and out" rather than a fortress-like, tightly controlled setting. The narrative centers on the fear that crime could be happening close at hand, and that this fear is not being adequately addressed by those in charge.

A recurring thread is the alleged favoritism and internal politics involving the management team. The reviewer asserts that the property manager and her assistant "got their picks and chooses," implying a biased system in which some residents are privileged while others are left unprotected. They mention jealousy and manipulative dynamics - "nick pick because of jealousy" and "they came the carmas work" - which suggests that interpersonal conflicts and perceived favoritism are influencing how security and daily operations are handled. When accusations are made about other residents lying or being treated unfairly, the reviewer portrays a climate in which trust within the community is eroded, and accountability from management may be lacking.

Another major concern is occupancy and the presence of people who do not actually live in the building. The reviewer flags "people not signing in and not signing out" and notes that "one's don't live there" but are still present, which they argue raises red flags about the level of control and security. They also point to residents staying for extended periods - "staying more than 21 days in a year" - as evidence that the building is not being used as intended and that non-residents could be exploiting weak security protocols. This line of thought feeds into a broader worry that non-residents can circulate freely, increasing the risk of theft, disturbance, or worse.

The role of the postal service and mail delivery is addressed with particular concern. The reviewer describes a scenario where postal workers feel scared or cautious about delivering mail, a sentiment they link to the lack of security and the surrounding atmosphere. The implication is that even routine tasks like mail delivery become fraught when the building's security posture is perceived as insufficient. The language used conveys a sense of heightened vigilance among service workers, which the reviewer ties back to the building's overall vulnerability, both inside and around the property.

Self-defense and personal protection emerge as concrete, practical responses in the review. The writer insists that anyone moving into the building should come prepared with self-defense items - ideally more than one - because there isn't reliable security in place. The call for protection is framed as a precaution against both daytime and nighttime risks, with a warning not to lower one's guard when entering or leaving the building. This emphasis on personal safety reflects a deep-seated fear that traditional safety measures provided by the property (guards, controlled access, surveillance) are inadequate.

On a personal level, the reviewer describes direct impacts on loved ones, specifically mentioning how their mother has been treated by staff. They express a resolve to report what they see as mistreatment and to take steps to stop it. This adds an emotionally charged dimension to the narrative, transforming general security concerns into a personal grievance and a defense-of-family plea. The rhetoric blends frustration with a sense of urgency: the property is portrayed as having systemic problems that affect residents' well-being and dignity.

Despite all the warnings, there remains a reluctant ambivalence about leaving entirely. The reviewer concedes that the situation is not a simple, one-size-fits-all judgment but rather a situation that requires careful consideration by anyone contemplating moving in. They acknowledge that the place could be seen as an opportunity, but only with the caveat that security would need to be improved and that occupants must exercise extreme vigilance. The closing sentiment is paradoxical: gratitude for the chance to stay paired with a firm warning that the risk is real unless strong protections are in place, especially at night. The message ends on a cautious, almost admonitory note - move with awareness, and preferably with protection in hand.

In sum, the narrative portrays a building beset by perceived security failures, internal power dynamics, and a troubling mix of non-residents and questionable day-to-day controls. It emphasizes fear and vigilance as daily norms, with a strong insistence that genuine safety measures are lacking. The reviewer urges potential movers to weigh these concerns heavily, to know someone in the building before committing, and to prepare for personal protection if they do decide to reside there. The tone blends frustration, caution, and a cautious blessing, underscoring a belief that without meaningful security improvements, the environment remains risky and potentially unsafe.

This part of St. Louis, Missouri offers a variety of amenities and services that cater to senior living. With several parks within a short distance, including Fairground Park and Tower Grove Park, residents have plenty of opportunities for outdoor recreation and relaxation. Additionally, there are numerous pharmacies and hospitals nearby, such as Walgreens and St. Louis Children's Hospital, providing easy access to healthcare services. The area also features a range of dining options, from casual eateries like McDonald's to upscale restaurants like Salt + Smoke. For those interested in worship, St Ann Catholic School and St Ambrose Church are within a few miles. Transportation options are also convenient with the Amtrak station and MetroLink North Hanley Station nearby. Overall, this part of St. Louis offers a welcoming and diverse community with plenty of resources for seniors looking to settle down in the area.

Parks

• Fairground Park (1.7 miles)
• Wohl Recreation Center / Sherman Park (2 miles)
• Bar K (4.7 miles)
• Citygarden (4.8 miles)
• Lafayette Park (5 miles)
• Gateway Arch National Park (5.2 miles)
• Tower Grove Park (5.5 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (2.8 miles)
• Walgreens (3.3 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3.3 miles)
• Express Scripts (4.5 miles)
• Schnucks (4.7 miles)
• Walgreens (5.1 miles)
• Walgreens (5.3 miles)

Hospitals

• Metropolitan St Louis Psychiatric Center (3 miles)
• VA Medical Center Spinal Cord Injury Program (3.1 miles)
• The Rehabilitation Institute of St Louis (3.6 miles)
• St Louis Children's Hospital (3.7 miles)
• SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center (4.5 miles)
• Gateway Regional Medical Center (5.1 miles)
• Christian Hospital (6.2 miles)

Restaurants

• Yellowbelly (3.2 miles)
• McDonald's (3.3 miles)
• Salt + Smoke (3.7 miles)
• The Muny (3.9 miles)
• Schlafly Tap Room (4 miles)
• Boathouse at Forest Park (4.1 miles)
• The Gramophone (4.2 miles)

Places of Worship

• St Ann Catholic School (3.5 miles)
• St Ambrose Church (5.2 miles)
• St Johns Lutheran Church (6.7 miles)
• Macedonia Baptist Church (6.8 miles)

Physicians

• Barnes-Jewish Hospital (3.8 miles)
• BJC Behavioral Health Service - Dinu Petru Gangure MD (4.4 miles)
• University Club Medical (7.1 miles)

Cafes

• Blueprint Coff (3.9 miles)
• Starbucks (4.1 miles)
• Starbucks (4.2 miles)
• Starbucks (5 miles)
• Starbucks (5 miles)

Transportation

• Zooline Railroad The Wild (4.4 miles)
• Amtrak (4.7 miles)
• Metrolink North Hanley Station (4.8 miles)
• Enterprise Rent-A-Car (6.4 miles)
• MetroLink - Emerson Park Station (6.8 miles)
• National Car Rental (7.1 miles)

Theaters

• AMC Esquire 7 (5.5 miles)